Author
Topic: Jays Roster Discussion (Read 57882 times)

The impression I have is that Atkins just doesn’t factor in the trade-by-trade micro-analysis into his decision making. One of the reasons the NHL trade market has dried up so much is that GMs are scared of “losing” every deal... Atkins seems unperturbed by the fan disquiet at “giving away” a player if that “loss” doesn’t impact his big picture plans.

I think that sort of statement is a bunch of horseshit trotted out by people that make bad decisions...the big picture plans are executed through these individual asset transactions.

And really, I think the unrest is more taking into account a bunch of trades lately...so if the argument is that this is an over-reaction to a small move, then they're not paying attention.

I know I’d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A. But if there was a handshake deal with Galvin before he signed, that trumps my insecurity.

I guess I can appreciate it if they're doing a solid by the player, if only strictly for the benefit of the teams' reputation among future prospective FAs.

Another important thing worth noting is that the idea that people are complaining about these deals is in and of itself somehow noteworthy and being used as cumulative weight by people who are self-proclaimed to not be terribly knowledgeable about this stuff doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Any time a team is trading actual contributing major leaguers for futures there are going to be fans complaining about how the team didn't do well enough. The better the player, the better the prospects received but also the more advocates that player will have for keeping them or getting an even better return. Some people just don't like the idea of rebuilding. Some think "rebuilding" should be trading your guys for players who are MLB-ready. And then there are just those who are always going to think the return could be better.

Shapiro and Atkins had a tough job taking over for a popular guy like Anthopoulos and they've been criticized by some for virtually every move they made, even ones that have been proven absolutely correct(anyone out there want to pay David Price 100 million dollars over the next three years?). So "I'm hearing some people say the Jays 'lost' this trade" being a major part of what you're putting forth is suspect to say the least.

While I understand the argument that some people are deal makers and others aren't, I honestly can't buy into the idea that Atkins is so incompetent that EVERY trade he makes is poor. The notion that he couldn't coax, cajole or sprinkle enough magic dust to materialize a return for Freddie Galvis is ridiculous. Despite his decent stats on a poor team, Galvis is, at best, an average player who plays a premium position. I'm also sure that other teams weren't lining up to do the Blue Jays any favours and that any interested teams, like the Reds, likely foresaw that the Jays' hands would be forced with the emergence of young players to waive Galvis.

If the argument is that Atkins is a bit hokey and possibly disingenuous in his comments and interviews, or that the Jays' player evaluation methodology seems out of whack with principles generally utilized by the League's most successful teams (ie. Grichuk contract, Fisher trade, etc.), then I'm all ears.

The impression I have is that Atkins just doesn’t factor in the trade-by-trade micro-analysis into his decision making. One of the reasons the NHL trade market has dried up so much is that GMs are scared of “losing” every deal... Atkins seems unperturbed by the fan disquiet at “giving away” a player if that “loss” doesn’t impact his big picture plans.

I think that sort of statement is a bunch of horseshit trotted out by people that make bad decisions...the big picture plans are executed through these individual asset transactions.

And really, I think the unrest is more taking into account a bunch of trades lately...so if the argument is that this is an over-reaction to a small move, then they're not paying attention.

I know I’d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A. But if there was a handshake deal with Galvin before he signed, that trumps my insecurity.

I guess I can appreciate it if they're doing a solid by the player, if only strictly for the benefit of the teams' reputation among future prospective FAs.

Wow, okay. I don’t love giving away Galvis just to open up a roster spot or anything, but if you’re actual smart business guy, try weighting the actual outlook of the team as parts of the rebuild are coming to fruition - they actually look pretty good right now - against your arbitrary “bad decisions” because of an imaginary threshold of asset management you’ve decided is required... simply, I’m not the one full of horseshit. But you keep on being aggressively wrong and enjoy that. This is the internet after all.

I know I’d have felt better if there was some kid coming the other way, even if likely result is the kid never gets past double-A.

So I think you and I are in general agreement about most of this but I just have to pause to ask about this. Each year, because of the way Baseball does their draft and international signings, each team is going to add 30 or so prospects to the organization. Then with international signings you're probably looking at 30-40 prospects added each year, most of whom are in the "unlikely to get past AA" category.

So when you say that getting one more guy in a Galvis trade would make you feel better...is it just a matter of principle? I'm not trying to be overly literal or sarcastic I just genuinely am puzzled by this sort of attitude when, quite literally, the Jays could go out right now and sign a whole basket-full of probably meaningless prospects who got passed over in the draft if they wanted to. Why does one extra for Galvis matter at all?

#BlueJays say Lourdes Gurriel Jr., will undergo a follow-up MRI tomorrow to assess healing and will also have additional functional testing today and tomorrow. Imaging and testing will set timeline for a return.

Good news Blue Jay fans (and something to help us that farcical 16-3 debacle at the hands of the L.A. Dodgers). The Jays prospect Nate Pearson had a very successful debut with Triple A Buffalo with pitching seven shutout innings.

.@BlueJays prospect Nate Pearson allowed three hits and struck out three across seven scoreless innings in his first triple-A start.

Ya Pearson and Manoah could be beasts and Pearson could be with us for next season. I really like Thornton as well. Borucki will be healed for next year. And Zuech just threw a no hitter. Waguespack has been a pleasant surprise as well. I think we have a lot of good pitching out there and some about half of it will be ready for next season.

And Shoemaker if he can remain healthy, had a great start to this season. I sort of feel like I did about the Leafs 3 years ago when the rebuild was getting a hot start.

Logged

"In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" Sunryn Suzuki